The present invention relates to patient-specific planning and guidance of ablative procedures for cardiac arrhythmias using medical imaging data, and more particularly, to method and system for calculating advanced measurements to target ablation sites during an intervention.
Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is responsible for over 300,000 deaths per year in the United States. Severe cardiac arrhythmias, such as ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), are the most common causes of SCD. Currently, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator devices (ICD) are the primary treatment of choice for patients at high risk for VT or VF. These devices prevent life-threatening VT/VF events by automatically sending strong defibrillator shocks when VT/VF is detected. However, the morbidity associated with ICD shocks is high and ICDs do not provide complete protection against SCD. When arrhythmias become incessant or too severe, an alternative therapy becomes necessary.
Ablation procedures for cardiac arrhythmias have proven to be successful for a large variety of cardiac electrophysiology troubles. Atrial fibrillation (Afib), VT, or VF, for example, can be treated, or at least controlled, in several classes of patients. The general idea behind ablation therapy is to destroy the cells that trigger the arrhythmias. These cells can be ectopic, i.e., they trigger uncontrolled electrical signals spontaneously, or exits points slow conducting pathways that can be found, for example, around myocardium scars. The success of the ablation therapy relies on the ability of the electrophysiologist to identify the arrhythmogenic regions. While Afib ablation has become systematic in most patients, finding the regions to ablate in post myocardium infarction (MI) patients is extremely challenging due to the variability in scar geometry and local tissue substrate. Current practice is still lacking of a systematic clinical strategy, which may explain the rather unsatisfactory success rate of ablation therapies for VT (from 50% to 90%). There is therefore a need for efficient tools for improving ablative procedures as a primary therapy, in terms of maximizing outcomes, decreasing risks and minimizing intervention time.